mardigrasbob 0 #1 June 28, 2004 Ruling in the case of American-born detainee Yaser Esam Hamdi, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the court has "made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens." www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/28/scotus.enemy.combatants.ap/index.html ------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #2 June 28, 2004 (all emphasis mine) Quote The White House had claimed broad authority to seize and hold potential terrorists or their protectors for as long as the president saw fit - and without interference from judges or lawyers. Are people really ok in America with the concept of being arrested without charge, and not being able to challenge that arrest in court? Quote The administration had fought any suggestion that Hamdi or another U.S.-born terrorism suspect could go to court, saying that such a legal fight posed a threat to the president's power to wage war as he sees fit. Does that not worry anyone? The concept that a President can do what he likes regardless of the law and no one is allowed to even question it? Quote The Bush administration contends that as "enemy combatants," the men are not entitled to the usual rights of prisoners of war set out in the Geneva Conventions. Enemy combatants are also outside the constitutional protections for ordinary criminal suspects, the government has claimed. er... I'm confused... I thought the Geneva convention was all about enemy combatants... And wasn't the administration arguing these men were not combatants a while ago? Quote The administration argued that the president alone has authority to order their detention, and that courts have no business second-guessing that decision. Have they not even heard of the separation of powers? That is one of America's major constitutional tenets and this statement flies in the face of it. That is such a ridiculous comment from a legal standpoint it is hard to believe it has been made. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #3 June 28, 2004 Quote(all emphasis mine) lawrocket's in italics. Quote The White House had claimed broad authority to seize and hold potential terrorists or their protectors for as long as the president saw fit - and without interference from judges or lawyers. Are people really ok in America with the concept of being arrested without charge, and not being able to challenge that arrest in court? No, most good thinking Americans are not. Neither is the court, as you can see. Quote The administration had fought any suggestion that Hamdi or another U.S.-born terrorism suspect could go to court, saying that such a legal fight posed a threat to the president's power to wage war as he sees fit. Does that not worry anyone? The concept that a President can do what he likes regardless of the law and no one is allowed to even question it? This worries the hell out of many people, including the courts. Quote The Bush administration contends that as "enemy combatants," the men are not entitled to the usual rights of prisoners of war set out in the Geneva Conventions. Enemy combatants are also outside the constitutional protections for ordinary criminal suspects, the government has claimed. er... I'm confused... I thought the Geneva convention was all about enemy combatants... And wasn't the administration arguing these men were not combatants a while ago? As I've said before, I am rightly infuriated by the "criminal defense lawyer" mentality of the Bush administration in trying to find loopholes, arguments, and tossing everything against a wall to see if something will stick in attempt to either nullify the laws of the US or make them unenforceable. The job of the executive branch is to ENFORCE laws, and nto to find ways around enforcing them. I'm ashamed of this Quote The administration argued that the president alone has authority to order their detention, and that courts have no business second-guessing that decision. Have they not even heard of the separation of powers? That is one of America's major constitutional tenets and this statement flies in the face of it. That is such a ridiculous comment from a legal standpoint it is hard to believe it has been made. Well put, sir. There are some lawyers, like us, who value credibility above all else. The administration and its lawyers all lose credibility making arguments like that. Have they not learned the lessons of Nixon? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zennie 0 #4 June 28, 2004 QuoteAre people really ok in America with the concept of being arrested without charge, and not being able to challenge that arrest in court? If you read the tail end of the Fahrenheit 9/11 thread, the answer to your question is yes. There appear to be a few folks around here who seem to be perfectly fine with that. Thank God the Supreme Court disagrees. - Z "Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mardigrasbob 0 #5 June 28, 2004 QuoteDoes that not worry anyone? The concept that a President can do what he likes regardless of the law and no one is allowed to even question it? Have they not even heard of the separation of powers? That is one of America's major constitutional tenets and this statement flies in the face of it. That is such a ridiculous comment from a legal standpoint it is hard to believe it has been made. Proof that the system works! The Presidents' job is to 'protect' the country. Under our form of democracy, he is only 1/3 of the government. If in the event that the President goes too far. The Congress and the Supreme Court are there to 'check and balance' his authority. What a Country! While I feel that the court's decision weakened our defense; it was the right thing to do. America must show the world that we care about the rights of the individual. The Supreme Court has shown today that America cares even for the human rights of scumbag terrorists baby killers. President Bush is doing everything he can to protect us and I trust his motives. He cannot do as he pleases, which is a good thing, the next man or woman in his job may not have honorable motives. 'We the people' of the USA are living in the greatest Democracy ever and today; nine old farts in robes proved it to world! ---- www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/constitution.html ---- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zennie 0 #6 June 28, 2004 Quotenine old farts in robes proved it to world! 7 farts and 2 fartresses? - Z "Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #7 June 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteDoes that not worry anyone? The concept that a President can do what he likes regardless of the law and no one is allowed to even question it? Have they not even heard of the separation of powers? That is one of America's major constitutional tenets and this statement flies in the face of it. That is such a ridiculous comment from a legal standpoint it is hard to believe it has been made. Proof that the system works! The Presidents' job is to 'protect' the country. Under our form of democracy, he is only 1/3 of the government. If in the event that the President goes too far. The Congress and the Supreme Court are there to 'check and balance' his authority. What a Country! While I feel that the court's decision weakened our defense; it was the right thing to do. America must show the world that we care about the rights of the individual. The Supreme Court has shown today that America cares even for the human rights of scumbag terrorists baby killers. Of course, until there's a trial no-one knows if they are "scumbag terrorists baby killers" or just unlucky bastards accused unjustly. Quote President Bush is doing everything he can to protect us and I trust his motives. You have no idea what his true motives are. He says one thing and does another, over and over again.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #8 June 28, 2004 QuoteProof that the system works! I owe you a beer! Thanks for putting it like that. I lost the forest through the trees. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #9 June 28, 2004 QuoteProof that the system works! Agreed, it did here. Don't get me wrong guys, I was criticising the arguments put by the Administration, not the judgement itself. I firmly believe that the best defence a nation has against itself is a strong and independent Judiciary. So long as a Government can be held up to scrutiny and held to account for its transgressions, there will be order and tyranny will not be countenanced by the public. The arguments put by the Administration in the linked article seek to undermine that fact. That those arguments were put in the first place is, in itself, a very bad thing in my opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
